"Wealth redistribution", and "increasing the size of government" are two GOP talking points with almost no substance. The largest expansion of government in 20 years happened during Bush Jr's administration, with the creation of the new homeland security apparatus.
Obama has created no new departments, new government agencies...so what exactly did he do to "increase the size of government"?

I'm a social moderate and a fiscal conservative. I don't watch ANY cable news. I think the GOP is the party of big government and overspending and they lie about it, and the Democrats are currently actually better for the middle class because they give a **** about things like the minimum wage and feeding kids.

Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.
Much of the hiring increases came in the departments of homeland security, justice, veterans and defense.
The federal payroll has been expanding since President Bush took office, after declining during the Clinton administration. But it's still a tad smaller than it was in 1992, said Craig Jennings, a federal budget expert at the progressive think tank OMB Watch.
The federal government has been one of the few areas that's grown during the economic downturn. The private sector remains down 1.1 million jobs from the start of 2009, while state and local governments have shed 635,000 positions.

There's plenty of blame to go around. The Republicans spent like Democrats when they had a chance to change the fiscal direction of this country.

How much has President Barack H. Obama grown the size of the U.S. government’s budget since coming into power in January 2009?
If we go by President George W. Bush’s final Fiscal Year 2009 budget, in which the average amount of federal government spending for each year through Fiscal Year 2013 was projected to be $2.732 trillion (in terms of inflation-adjusted, constant 2005 U.S. dollars) and compare that value to the average amount of federal spending that President Obama is currently projecting for both 2012 and 2013 of $3.185 trillion (also in terms of constant 2005 U.S. dollars), we find that President Obama has effected a permanent federal government spending increase of at least $452 billion.
Or in other terms, President Obama has permanently grown the size of the U.S. federal government’s budget by 16.5% during the four years he will have been in office by the end of his first term in office. The federal government’s spending is one-sixth bigger today than it was projected to be at this point four years ago.

But those were just the preliminaries for the biggest single spending bill in world history, Obamacare, enacted in March, 2010. That legislation is not yet even counted in Obama’s spending record so far because it mostly does not go into effect until 2014. But it is now scored by CBO as increasing federal spending by $1.6 trillion in the first 10 years alone, with trillions more to come in future years.
After just one year of the Obama spending binge, federal spending had already rocketed to 25.2% of GDP, the highest in American history except for World War II. That compares to 20.8% in 2008, and an average of 19.6% during Bush’s two terms. The average during President Clinton’s two terms was 19.8%, and during the 60-plus years from World War II until 2008 — 19.7%. Obama’s own fiscal 2013 budget released in February projects the average during the entire 4 years of the Obama Administration to come in at 24.4% in just a few months. That budget shows federal spending increasing from $2.983 trillion in 2008 to an all time record $3.796 trillion in 2012, an increase of 27.3%.

We're being screwed by both sides. Anybody that doesn't believe that should pull their head from ass. Once again, it's a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Increasing federal payroll or increasing the number of government jobs is not "growing the size of government". Weasel wording.

Expanding or increasing the size of government is about adding layers of bureaucracy, red tap, redundant departments...you know, the kind of thing satirized in Brazil.

Increasing the size of government does NOT mean hiring cops, firefighters, and other types of government employees including cooks, janitors, and temps in addition to the whole array of professional jobs.

When the DOJ hires a full time plumber, that is not expanding government. That is adding jobs.

The difference between candidates is at least Obama has convinced me *all* jobs (public and private) are important and should be invested in, whereas Mitt wants to gut a lot of public sector jobs using his professional experience gutting private sector jobs, to show a better bottom line.

When the DOJ hires a full time plumber, that is not expanding government. That is adding jobs.

The difference between candidates is at least Obama has convinced me *all* jobs (public and private) are important and should be invested in, whereas Mitt wants to gut a lot of public sector jobs using his professional experience gutting private sector jobs, to show a better bottom line.

Who is the real "job killer" here?

Having a government worker cleaning government offices is an increase in government. It has to be paid for by taxes or govt borrowing. What is the return on investment you expect? Avoiding generals tripping dirty floors?

I just can't follow this line of reasoning. Advocating increased number of government jobs can be a reasonable position but claiming that government is not increasing when you do so is not.

Having a government worker cleaning government offices is an increase in government. It has to be paid for by taxes or govt borrowing.

It's still not "expanding government" the way the GOP describes it, is it? Nope. Semantic games.

And so what where the money comes from? I'd rather have my taxes go to public employment than, say, cruise missiles but what choice do I get?

And if we use your (weasel worded) definition of "expanding government" then I could say the you're talking about the military too, which proves the GOP really does love public sector jobs, doesn't it. It's OK to hire more soldiers than it is to hire DOJ plumbers?

Originally Posted by mike321

I just can't follow this line of reasoning.

Just like I can't follow the "destroying America" line of reasoning?

That's Chuck Norris' line too, and he's obviously gone batshit crazy. When does the Thousand Years of Darkness officially occur, once Obama is re-elected?

It's still not "expanding government" the way the GOP describes it, is it? Nope. Semantic games.

And so what where the money comes from? I'd rather have my taxes go to public employment than, say, cruise missiles but what choice do I get?

And if we use your (weasel worded) definition of "expanding government" then I could say the you're talking about the military too, which proves the GOP really does love public sector jobs, doesn't it. It's OK to hire more soldiers than it is to hire DOJ plumbers?

Just like I can't follow the "destroying America" line of reasoning?

That's Chuck Norris' line too, and he's obviously gone batshit crazy. When does the Thousand Years of Darkness officially occur, once Obama is re-elected?

Yes, increasing a standing army is increasing the government. Hypocrisy of republicans does not change anything. What's your point? When republican presidents advocated decreasing government I think they were correct, when the government actually grew (including military) i think they were wrong. I try to be consistent. And expanding government is not semantics in any way. It manifests with controls of our actions, higher operating costs, and more public sector employees. If you are ok with this, argue the merits of doing this. The "destroying America" is meaningless rhetoric to me. In a previous post I mentioned a list of Obamas accomplishments that can be judged. In my opinion Obama has not earned the "I don't care who the competition is, I am sticking with this guy" vote. So the NEXT question: what are pros and cons of Romney? Or more realistically for a California voter: what is the best alternate vote?

Romney's biggest pro was that he implemented successful health insurance reform in the state of Massachusetts, my old haunt. 500,000 people insured and up to a 8% drop in ER visits statewide. The conservatives there are still bitching about the costs though...still bitching...all conservatives get done these days is crying in groups.

His biggest con is that he is now saying it's a bad system because Obama used it to successfully pass his signature legislation. You know....more crying.

So, his biggest con is he is a far worse liar than Obama has been proven to be. And his crying.

Romney's second biggest pro is that he's one of the few GOP contenders who actually admitted, on record, he doesn't believe the Birthers. If only he could rise above the rest of his party's bullshit.

Obama Care alone will increase the size substantially including the dreaded IRS.

I've laid out examples of the increase in Federal spending. You don't think a sizable part of that includes more government workers? Adding jobs? Yeah, the type that this country can't support at this time.

Obama Care alone will increase the size substantially including the dreaded IRS.

I've laid out examples of the increase in Federal spending. You don't think a sizable part of that includes more government workers? Adding jobs? Yeah, the type that this country can't support at this time.